Talk:Pattern 1913 Enfield

Firearms Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / British / European / World War I

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War I task force

work in progress--TGC55 00:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Was this the first, or one of the first, military rifles to use a peep sight? I don't know of any others that used a peep/receiver sight so early on. Boris B (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know it was the first, but it was certainly about the first to see widespread service (in its P '14 and M1917 incarnations). In the US at least it was influential enough that the M1903A3 Springfield, M1928/M1 Thompson, M1 Garand and M1 Carbine all adopted receiver peeps (albeit of tangent type, rather than leaf).--Solicitr (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge articles?

Does it make sense to have separate articles for the P'13 and P'14, which were effectively identical but for chambering? The P'13's only real significance is that it wound up being the prototype for the .303 version. Solicitr (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]